Difference between revisions of "User:Tohline/Apps/OstrikerBodenheimerLyndenBell66"
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Our Approach=== | ===Our Approach=== | ||
When | When the stated objective is to construct steady-state equilibrium models of rotationally flattened, axisymmetric configurations, the [[User:Tohline/AxisymmetricConfigurations/Equilibria#Axisymmetric_Configurations_.28Steady-State_Structures.29|accompanying introductory chapter]] shows how the overarching set of [[User:Tohline/PGE#Principal_Governing_Equations|principal governing equations]] can be reduced in form to the following set of three coupled PDEs (expressed either in terms of cylindrical or spherical coordinates): | ||
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
One can immediately appreciate that, independent of the chosen coordinate base, the first expression listed among | This set of simplified governing relations must then be supplemented by a specification of: (a) a barotropic equation of state, <math>~P(\rho)</math>; and (b) the equilibrium configurations's radial specific angular momentum profile <math>~j(\varpi)</math>. How does this recommended modeling approach compare to the approach outlined by Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966)? | ||
===Approach Outlined by Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966)=== | |||
One can immediately appreciate that, independent of the chosen coordinate base, the first expression listed among our trio of covering PDEs derives from the ''differential representation'' of the Poisson equation as [[User:Tohline/AxisymmetricConfigurations/PoissonEq#Overview|discussed elsewhere]] and as has been reprinted here as Table1. | |||
<div align="center"> | <div align="center"> | ||
<table border="1" cellpadding="8" align="center" width=" | <table border="1" cellpadding="8" align="center" width="70%"> | ||
<tr><th align="center" colspan="2"><font size="+0">Table 1: Poisson Equation</font></th></tr> | <tr><th align="center" colspan="2"><font size="+0">Table 1: Poisson Equation</font></th></tr> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
Line 187: | Line 191: | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
OBLB (1966) chose, instead, to use the ''integral representation'' of the Poisson equation to evaluate the gravitational potential; specifically, they write, | |||
<table border="0" align="center"> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td align="right"> | |||
<math>~ \Phi_g(\vec{x})</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<math>~=</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="left"> | |||
<math>~ -G \int \frac{\rho(\vec{x}^{~'})}{|\vec{x}^{~'} - \vec{x}|} d^3x^' \, .</math> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
</table> | |||
<div align="center"> | <div align="center"> | ||
Line 194: | Line 214: | ||
{{User:Tohline/Math/EQ_Euler02}} | {{User:Tohline/Math/EQ_Euler02}} | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Our described approach is, of course, fundamentally the same as the approach outlined by OBLB (1966). | Our described approach is, of course, fundamentally the same as the approach outlined by OBLB (1966). | ||
Revision as of 04:42, 8 August 2019
Rotationally Flattened White Dwarfs
| Tiled Menu | Tables of Content | Banner Video | Tohline Home Page | |
Introduction
As we have reviewed in an accompanying discussion, Chandrasekhar (1935) was the first to construct models of spherically symmetric stars using the barotropic equation of state appropriate for a degenerate electron gas. In so doing, he demonstrated that the maximum mass of an isolated, nonrotating white dwarf is <math>M_3 = 1.44 (\mu_e/2)M_\odot</math>. A concise derivation of <math>~M_3</math> is presented in Chapter XI of Chandrasekhar (1967).
Something catastrophic should happen if mass is greater than <math>~M_3</math>. What will rotation do? Presumably it can increase the limiting mass.
- J. P. Ostriker, P. Bodenheimer & D. Lynden-Bell (1966), Phys. Rev. Letters, 17, 816: Equilibrium Models of Differentially Rotating Zero-Temperature Stars
… work by Roxburgh (1965, Z. Astrophys., 62, 134), Anand (1965, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S., 54, 23), and James (1964, ApJ, 140, 552) shows that the [Chandrasekhar (1931, ApJ, 74, 81)] mass limit <math>~M_3</math> is increased by only a few percent when uniform rotation is included in the models, … In this Letter we demonstrate that white-dwarf models with masses considerably greater than <math>~M_3</math> are possible if differential rotation is allowed … models are based on the physical assumption of an axially symmetric, completely degenerate, self-gravitating fluid, in which the effects of viscosity, magnetic fields, meridional circulation, and relativistic terms in the hydrodynamical equations have been neglected. |
Solution Strategy
Our Approach
When the stated objective is to construct steady-state equilibrium models of rotationally flattened, axisymmetric configurations, the accompanying introductory chapter shows how the overarching set of principal governing equations can be reduced in form to the following set of three coupled PDEs (expressed either in terms of cylindrical or spherical coordinates):
Cylindrical Coordinate Base | Spherical Coordinate Base | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poisson Equation
The Two Relevant Components of the
|
Poisson Equation
The Two Relevant Components of the
|
This set of simplified governing relations must then be supplemented by a specification of: (a) a barotropic equation of state, <math>~P(\rho)</math>; and (b) the equilibrium configurations's radial specific angular momentum profile <math>~j(\varpi)</math>. How does this recommended modeling approach compare to the approach outlined by Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966)?
Approach Outlined by Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966)
One can immediately appreciate that, independent of the chosen coordinate base, the first expression listed among our trio of covering PDEs derives from the differential representation of the Poisson equation as discussed elsewhere and as has been reprinted here as Table1.
Table 1: Poisson Equation | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Integral Representation | Differential Representation | |||||
|
|
OBLB (1966) chose, instead, to use the integral representation of the Poisson equation to evaluate the gravitational potential; specifically, they write,
<math>~ \Phi_g(\vec{x})</math> |
<math>~=</math> |
<math>~ -G \int \frac{\rho(\vec{x}^{~'})}{|\vec{x}^{~'} - \vec{x}|} d^3x^' \, .</math> |
Eulerian Representation
of the Euler Equation,
<math>~\frac{\partial\vec{v}}{\partial t} + (\vec{v}\cdot \nabla) \vec{v}= - \frac{1}{\rho} \nabla P - \nabla \Phi</math>
Our described approach is, of course, fundamentally the same as the approach outlined by OBLB (1966).
See Also
© 2014 - 2021 by Joel E. Tohline |